The battle over Chicago’s red light cameras

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

Mark Wallace

Mark Wallace, Director of Citizens to Abolish Red Light Cameras is in-studio to talk about questionable citations issued from the city’s red light cameras, and why some are calling for the whole program to be abolished.

1 Comment

thechicagobat

Contest by mail. Don't send money. Use this legal defense and cite your rights. It's gotten these tickets dismissed in other municipalities and it's what I send:

*************************

Attention Department of Revenue:

I received your notice claiming I committed a red light camera violation in the City of Chicago at LOCATION on DATE. As per the instructions, I am writing to plead NOT GUILTY to this charge.

Although this option is said to result in this matter going to court; it is my suggestion that the charges simply be dropped. This suggestion comes out of respect for tax-payers, and my request that their hard earned money not be wasted in such proceedings. As there is no evidence of my involvement with this alleged ‘violation, as well as the fact that I am not granted my 6th amendment right to face my ‘accuser’ (a camera),

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."

I see no way the City of Chicago could prove my guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I also see find no legal requirement for me to implicate someone else in this process, as it is the government's responsibility to prove a person's guilt. It is also my 5th amendment right to remain silent on the matter.

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

If it is the City of Chicago’s decision to move forward in this matter, I would request copies of any evidence the prosecution may have of my involvement in the “offense”; as well as, all maintenance records for the camera(s) involved. The Constitution guarantees me the right to confront my accusers. That means the photo technically cannot be allowed into evidence without allowing me or my legal counsel to cross-examine a witness who maintains the records and system associated with the camera alleging my violation.

REGISTERED CAR OWNER

**************

Every municipality has a responsibility under your civil rights under the 5th and 6th amendments to provide evidence who is driving, regardless of who the car is registered to driving, it’s their burden of proof. Just because they have pictures of a car doesn’t mean they can prosecute the owner if someone else was driving. Their insane logic would have the owner of a car liable if someone else stole it and ran over a pedestrian. It doesn't make any legal sense when you are being fined for what is defined as a misdemeanor (a traffic violation) and it's why other states have been challenged and gotten rid of their cameras, after a big company has already raked in the cash though.

A misdemeanor is defined as:

Creates a real threat of injury to a person or destruction of property.

If the state claims that the violation of running a red light or speeding must incur a penalty because it's all about safety (a real threat of injury to a person or destruction of property) then all these red light and speed camera violations can be defined as misdemeanors, which are "crimes" and in which you do have rights defending under the 6th and 5th amendments.